You're making the mistake of arguing on the basis of realistic rather than perceived risks and probabilities, no_one.

I think that the rules should be changed so that lifejackets are not sufficient for single-engine flights over water beyond gliding distance from land. A shark-proof cage should be carried as well, especially off Samurai and Stockton Beaches, which are well-known Noah territory. That and full-body suits to provide protection from bluebottles and box jellyfish. You tell me there's zero risk of shark attack and bluebottle and jellyfish stings after a ditching, and I'll change my mind.

It's OK to fly over tiger country single engine, because an unsurvivable forced landing in tiger country is a much nicer way to die than drowning or being chomped up by a shark. Therefore, the probabilities of the latter happening are higher than the former and greater and more expensive mitigation strategies are therefore justified. It stands to reason.

In any event, light aircraft should not be anywhere near military aircraft, because a Cessna doesn't look good as a hood ornament on an F/A 18. It's self-evidently a collision risk having them in the air at the same time within range of each other, and the fact that one of the aircraft is an expensive, super-sonic, highly manoeuvrable, sophisticated piece of weaponry piloted by highly trained ADF personnel means the risk of collisions with civilian aircraft should be reduced to zero.

One mid-air will prove that the restricted/controlled airspace around these places should be bigger, not smaller.

(In short, I agree entirely with you, no_one. It's a good solution that balances realistic risks and realistic costs/benefits. Not perfect; but there's no such thing.)

I think no_one's suggestion has merit. The discussion of the costal option as per today exists as the other two option of up the train line or over the Barrington Tops are less direct. Freeing up a 2000ft over land option has merit.

From the leading Aviation expert in Australia:

;)

Traffic Is Er Was,

The two statements are not necessarily contradictory, holding at a lower speed, doing orbits at 500 feet 1 mile off the coast, if the engine fails when you are pointed out to sea you have to do a 180 degree turn (or potentially more unless you reverse it) before you start heading back in, you don't have the speed or the height to get very far. If you load mum dad and the kids into a 182 or Saratoga and are at ~130 knots and 1000 feet and 3 is miles off shore you have a very high probability of making the beech. For some people that distance would be close to a normal downwind leg. (just joking.... kind of)

When people on both side of the argument focus on emotional risks rather than real ones, we end up with outcomes that are less safe or efficient than if the risks were addressed objectively.